ILNews

Workers’ comp, JTAC bills pass full Senate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation out of the House of Representatives reconfiguring workers’ compensation in Indiana passed the Senate Wednesday and goes back to the House with some changes.

House Bill 1320 increases nonmedical workers’ compensation caps to $390,000 per injury for injuries happening after July 1, 2014. It also increases the average weekly wage used to calculate compensation for nonmedical temporary partial or total disability, and for total permanent disability; on or after July 1, 2014, the average weekly wage used will be $1,170. That’s a $195 increase over the wage used for injuries that would occur today.

The bill also makes changes to payment rates as compared to Medicare. The legislation passed the Senate 43-7.

The Judicial Technology and Automation bill, HB 1393, passed the Senate 50-0. The bill establishes a judicial technology oversight committee, requires the Division of State Court Administration to develop and implement a standard protocol for sending and receiving court data by the end of the year, and increases the automated record keeping fee by $2 for two years, among other things. HB 1393 returns to the House with amendments.

The Senate also passed HB 1482 by a vote of 39-11. The bill allows a court to expunge records concerning misdemeanor convictions and minor Class D felony convictions under certain circumstances, and it gives judges discretion concerning some more serious felony convictions. The bill returns to the House with amendments.

On Thursday, the Senate concurred with House amendments to SB 125. The bill, which creates a commission on improving the status of children, a Department of Child Services oversight committee, and establishes a local child fatality review team in each county and a statewide child fatality review committee, passed 48-1 and is ready for enrollment. The introduced version of the bill was prepared by the Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee.

Also on Wednesday, the House voted 93-0 to approve Senate Bill 433 addressing abandoned property issues. The bill establishes a procedure to allow a county executive to dispose of certain properties that didn’t sell at a tax sale to a person who is able to repair and maintain the property. It also says that someone who enters or refuses to leave a vacant or abandoned property after having been barred from it by a court order or law enforcement officer commits criminal trespass. SB 433 was returned to the Senate with amendments. 

SB 285 regarding wavier of the right to remonstrate against annexation passed the House 93-0. It provides that if someone waives his or her right to remonstrate against an annexation as part of a contract with a municipality for providing sewer service to the property, then that release isn’t binding on a successor in title of the property under certain circumstances.  It also returns to the Senate after being amended.

The 2013 legislative session is scheduled to end April 29.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT